Evidence submitted by the Ministry of
Justice (formerly the Department for Constitutional Affairs)
At the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee
hearing on 17 April I promised to send you further information
on the building selection procedure for the UK Supreme Court.
The attached document outlines the building
selection procedure in detail. Although I did not elaborate on
our search for a "new-build site" during the hearing,
I have I trust, provided you with enough information to satisfy
the Committee that the building search was thorough, fair and
sensible.
You will note that we specifically asked our
property agents to explore the potential for new-build sites.
Unfortunately, they could not locate any private sector sites
for development, reflecting the current state of the central London
office market. In particular, the agents advised that the Supreme
Court space requirement was insufficient to act as an "anchor
tenant" and that commercial developers had indicated they
would be seeking a pre-let of at least 10,000 square metres to
`kick start' a development programme.
The results of this search are outlined in the
attached extract (Annex A), taken from the Record of Procedure
for selecting Building, 22 December 2004. During the search
Land Securities approached DCA with two properties: Fetter Lane,
near the Royal Courts of Justice and Buckingham Gate. Fetter Lane
was deemed too large for use as the Supreme Court and was taken
up by HMCS. It is now in use as the Business Court. Buckingham
Gate was included in the detailed feasibility study, details of
which are in provided at Annex B, but it was ruled out because
if offered a much less prestigious location at a higher cost.
I have made some suggested additions to the
CASC transcript to reflect both the information on the new-build
search and the presumption that an appeal had been lodged against
the Judicial Review decision.
Finally, you asked about the Middlesex Coat
of Arms being removed from the Middlesex Guildhall. The Coat of
Arms, which appears several times on the exterior of the building,
is inappropriate for a UK and Commonwealth institution. The Coat
of Arms directly above the front entrance will be removed. Two
plaques either side of the front entrance will be relocated inside
the building and replaced with new UK Supreme Court and Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council plaques. Otherwise the exterior
of the building will be cleaned, repaired and left unchanged.
Throughout the process we have consulted widely with all local
societies and amenity groups including a group of Middlesex MPs
led by David Wilshire. Westminster City Council specifically complimented
our approach to engaging with all interested parties and we continue
to work with them.
Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor
14 May 2007
Annex A
RECORD OF
PROCEDURE FOR
SELECTING BUILDING
(EXTRACT)
1.1 Statement of Requirements
In order to identify the preferred location
for the new Supreme Court, a statement of requirements for the
building was agreed in conjunction with the Lords of Appeal in
Ordinary.
The headline requirement was for an appropriate
building of approximately 3,800 square metres, [3]including
three committee rooms, a library and ancillary accommodation for
the Justices of the Supreme Court and their support staff.
Of the three committee rooms, the intention
is that two would be in full-time use by the new Supreme Court,
with the third being available for use by the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council, and for ad hoc Inquiries. The third
would also be required to provide for future business expansion
(particularly as the JCPC2[4]
is likely to co-locate with the Supreme Court). The building will
contain a judicial retiring room for each Justice of the Supreme
Court, with two additional rooms for use by part-time members.
There will be ancillary accommodation for approximately 35 administrative
support staff, of which eight will be dedicated legal assistants
employed to assist the Law Lords with their research. The building
will also house a law library for the use of the Justices and
the legal assistants. Separate dining facilities would also be
provided for the Justices, with the provision of canteen facilities
for staff and public dependent on ultimate location.
1.2 Why is the Supreme Court being located
in London?
The Supreme Court will sit at the apex of the
judicial systems of England & Wales, Scotland and Northern
Ireland and as such, it is appropriate that it should sit in the
nation's capital, just as the UK Parliament sits in London. This
is the approach taken in many other countries where the Supreme
Court is sited in the same city as the legislature and the centre
of the executive.
In addition more practical issues were also
considered:
— The existing Law Lords will
become the first Justices of the Supreme Court and, even if they
proved willing to relocate, any associated costs would have to
be met at public expense.
— The staff of the House of Lords'
Judicial Office, who currently support the Law Lords, have also
been offered the opportunity to transfer to the new Supreme Court
and it is likely that some of them would be deterred by an alternative
location. Such a loss of experience could jeopardise the operational
effectiveness of the Court.
— Analysis of historical case
details has shown that London practitioners make up the vast majority
of those appearing before the Appellate Committee and that this
would be the case even if it were located elsewhere. A move outside
London would increase practitioner travel costs, which would,
in turn, be passed on to Court users.
1.3 Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
(JCPC)
As part of the development of the statement
of requirements, meetings had taken place between representatives
of the Project and the JCPC about the possibility of their co-location
with the Supreme Court and to identify their space requirements.
In November the Law Lords submitted their collective response
to the consultation document, within which they recommended that
the JCPC should be co-located with the Supreme Court. Accordingly
a letter was sent to the Lord President of the Privy Council seeking
her views towards their Lordships recommendation. The Lord President
responded on 27 November to the effect that she could see merit
in the proposal, however she felt that further discussions between
officials should take place before she was able to agree to co-location.
During December and January a series of meetings
took place between representatives from the Project Team, the
Judicial Committee and the Foreign Office, in order to discuss
the proposal to co-locate. Following those meetings, the Lord
President wrote to the Secretary of State on 10 February 2004
to confirm that she agreed in principle to the co-location of
the JCPC with the Supreme Court, subject to the following conditions:
— The Privy Council Office (PCO)
should not bear any of the start-up costs;
— The PCO would bear an appropriate
share of the annual running costs;
— The JCPC would have a separate
entrance and a dedicated Hearing Room, as envisaged by the Law
Lords, and offices and other accommodation that are fully adequate
for its needs; and that
— The JCPC should not move until
the Supreme Court itself moves into its permanent new premises.
1.4 Site Search Methodology—Initial
Search
Based on the statement of requirements, an evaluation
exercise was undertaken by instructed Estate Agents, Knight Frank,
in order to identify suitable locations that met the minimum requirements.
Their search involved:
— Reviewing the DCA estate in
London;
— Considering any suitable properties
on the Greater London Magistrates' Court Authority (GLMCA) estate;
— Obtaining from the Office of
Government Commerce (OGC) their known availability of property
on the wider Government estate in London;
— Contacting 17 Whitehall Departments
to determine whether any of their buildings might become available
within our initial timescales; and
— Searching current commercially
available property (within 1 mile of Charing Cross).
This initial search generated a long-list of
48 properties but only five of which, after closer scrutiny against
a number of criteria (size, operational efficiency, adaptability,
suitability), merited further consideration. [5]
The properties concerned were:
— Central and Staple Court, WC2—commercial
property;
— Mathew Parker Street, SW1—Crown
estate property;
— New Wing, Somerset House—Crown
estate/commercial property;
— Field House, Bream's Buildings
EC4—DCA estate property; and
— Victoria House, Bloomsbury Square
WC1—commercial property.
In addition to the five identified buildings,
Middlesex Guildhall was also recorded as having met the majority
of the evaluation criteria, however the operational impact upon
Criminal Business was felt to be detrimental to its overall desirability.
On the back of this, an initial submission was put up to Ministers
for consideration.
The Secretary of State convened a meeting on
29 October to discuss the options, at which time two of the locations,
Field House and 4 Matthew Parker Street, were removed from scope
as not being suitable locations for the new Court. On the 29 the
option of a new build was introduced for evaluation, while Middlesex
Guildhall was requested to be re-evaluated in conjunction with
a plan to re-provide the criminal courtrooms. It was recommended
that the search area be expanded to a two mile radius in order
to identify a wider range of options.
1.5 Site Search Methodology—Second Search
Following the meeting of 29 October, Knight
Frank were commissioned to conduct a search of possible sites
for a new build (or major refurbishment) within a two mile radius
of Charing Cross.
Unfortunately, they were unable to locate any
private sector sites for development. It was their expert opinion
that this was a reflection of the state of the central London
building market. Two potential sites were additionally identified:
Cardinal Place on Victoria Street and Belvedere Court at Jubilee
Gardens on the South Bank. Both of these are substantial development
sites, however the agents on both developments were not prepared
to consider a pre-let to the Supreme Court on the basis that the
requirement for up to 3,800m2 was insufficient to "kick start"
a development programme. The agents confirmed that they would
be seeking a pre-let of at least 10,000m2 to commence development
and that unfortunately the requirement for the Supreme Court was
insufficient to act as an "anchor tenant".
Although there were no suitable locations within
the private sector, Knight Frank were able to identify two potential
locations within the DCA London estate. These were St Dunstan's
House and Stewart House. St Dunstan's was proposed on the basis
of the demolition of the present location and building on the
existing "footprint". The proposal for Stewart House
was for the exterior shell to remain and the inside to be re-built
in order to meet the statement of requirements.
Accordingly a second submission was put to the
Secretary of State on 10 December. On 5 January the Secretary
of State convened a meeting with Officials to discus the submission.
From that meeting it was agreed that the revised short-list should
be:
— New Wing, Somerset House;
Victoria House was removed from the short-list
because another buyer had purchased the original floor that had
previously been identified while the remaining floor space no
longer met the statement of requirements.
1.6 Site Search Methodology—Evaluation
of Options
Turner & Townsend and Knight Frank were
engaged to produce a green book style evaluation of the options
under consideration.
In addition to the work being undertaken by
the commissioned consultants, informal soundings of the commercial
properties managed through the Corporation of London were also
evaluated, following on from the meeting between the Secretary
of State and the Lord Mayor on 19 January. Many of these had previously
been included within the initial search that had identified 48
properties, however those that were newly identified were evaluated
and were included in the February submission.
Draft green book[6]
appraisals were completed by the end of January. These were used
to facilitate an evaluation workshop that was held on 2 February.
At this event all of the properties under consideration were evaluated
against the following criteria: suitability; deliverability; prestige
and location; and affordability and value for money (Annex A).
The buildings evaluated at the workshop were:
In addition to these sites, there were three
other locations that were included in the Business Case but were
not included in the green book analysis. These were:
— Somerset House—By
the time of the February submission the Project Team had not completed
the relevant enquiries with HM Treasury, Inland Revenue, Somerset
House Trust or DCMS;
— Royal Courts of Justice—In
response to a query received from HM Treasury letters were sent
to representatives of the Devolved Administrations requesting
their views about the possibility of locating the Supreme Court
within the RCJ complex. In general the views were not in favour
of utilising the RCJ as a location, with many vehemently against
the possibility of it even being considered; and
— The "do minimum"
option of remaining in the Palace of Westminster—This
had fundamental flaws both in terms of policy and practicality.
In policy terms, it would make it much more difficult to demonstrate
the principle of separation between the judiciary and legislature;
in practice, Black Rod had indicated that it would be unacceptable
for the Supreme Court to be located in the Palace of Westminster
even on an interim basis.
In order to supplement the February submission
a presentation to the Law Lords was arranged for 9 February. The
aim of this was to obtain the Law Lords views regarding the buildings
that were under consideration and to discuss with them the up-to-date
position concerning the building selection. These views were noted
and incorporated into both the final Business Case and the February
submission.
Upon receipt of the submission a meeting was
arranged with the Secretary of State on 18 February in order to
consider the situation and the building options. At that meeting
the Secretary of State agreed with the submission's recommendations
that:
— Stewart House and St Dunstan's
House should be rejected as possible options;
— Three building options should
remain under consideration: Middlesex Guildhall, Central Court
and Somerset House;
— That, if Middlesex Guildhall
were the chosen option, an adverse impact on criminal justice
would be unacceptable.
1.7 Site Search Methodology—Business
Impact Analysis
Following on from the meeting of 18 February
a review of the London estate was undertaken through a series
of meetings with representatives from GLMCA, South-East Circuit
Administrator and London LCJB. The aim of these meetings was to
consider a possible solution for the re-provision of the criminal
courtrooms that would be displaced through the use of Middlesex
Guildhall as the Supreme Court.
A series of meetings with representatives from
GLMCA, South-East Circuit Administrator and London LCJB were undertaken
in conjunction with FMG and Project team representatives during
February and March.
On 30 March EC Harris were commissioned to produce
a feasibility study into the technical viability, options, costs
and timescales of providing the additional Crown courtrooms.
As part of the further evaluation of the building
options under consideration, Ernst & Young were instructed
to undertake a financial analysis of the building options as well
as consider the potential procurement options available, with
regard to providing advice to the Project as to the preferred
building/procurement option.
As part of the evaluation of the proposed architectural
plans for housing the Supreme Court at Middlesex Guildhall, a
series of meetings were held during March with representatives
from English Heritage and Westminster Council Planning Authorities
in order to ascertain their views regarding the proposals, the
statement of requirements and the deliverability.
An update submission was sent to the Secretary
of State in March, outlining the work that had been undertaken
since the February meeting as well as setting out the next steps
for delivering a recommended building solution.
Following receipt, and digestion, of the EC
Harris, Ernst & Young, English Heritage and Westminster Planners
information (and with no response having been received regarding
Somerset House), the options appraisal was revisited; this supported
Middlesex Guildhall as the "front runner" (based upon
lease disposal/leaseback solution).
A series of stakeholder events were arranged
in order to discuss the options and to obtain the views of the
key participants. On 27 April a visit was arranged for the Law
Lords to Middlesex Guildhall, so that they could collectively
review the proposals and to provide their first hand views.
On 30 April Lord Bingham, in a memorandum to
the Constitutional Reform Bill Select Committee, detailed the
views of the Law Lords towards the possible use of Middlesex Guildhall
as the location for housing the Supreme Court together with their
concerns about the possibility of interim accommodation within
the Houses of Parliament.
Negotiations vis-a"-vis Somerset
House had continued between Senior Officials of both the DCA and
HM Treasury. On 26 April an indication was received from HM Treasury
that they would be prepared to consider giving access to the New
Wing Somerset House in order to enable a provisional assessment
of feasibility to be undertaken.
On 7 May a submission was sent to the Secretary
of State detailing the state of play at that time and making a
series of recommendations relating to the building decision and
the buildings that remained under consideration.
On 8 June the Secretary of State appeared before
both the Constitutional Reform Bill Select Committee and the Constitutional
Affairs Committee to give evidence about the modernisation programme.
Within that evidence he provided an update as to the current position
regarding the Supreme Court building.
1.8 Site Search Methodology—Evaluation
of Somerset House
On 8 June the Secretary of State appeared before
the House of Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee, followed
later on the same day with an appearance before the Constitutional
Reform Bill Select Committee. The Secretary of State gave evidence
to both that:
"The potential options identified through
a comprehensive search of possible sites in central London have
been analysed against a number of criteria, including functional
suitability, deliverability, prestige and location, and value
for money and affordability. Following this detailed evaluation
exercise; two building options remain under active consideration.
These are Middlesex Guildhall and the new wing of Somerset House.
We will continue to investigate the relative qualitative and financial
merits of these two options in consultation with the Law Lords
before reaching a final decision."
(Lord Falconer, Secretary of State for Constitutional
Affairs; evidence before the Constitutional Affairs Committee,
8 June 2004.)
Subsequent to this announcement, on 9 June,
in response to an oral question from the Lord Peyton of Yeovil,
Lord Falconer expanded upon his earlier answer by confirming that
the (building) decision would be made in the autumn.
In developing the feasibility of Somerset House,
initial plans had been drawn up in order to meet the basic statement
of requirements. However, these plans, though fit for purpose
with regard to the SOR, were not suitable in fully utilising the
space available within the structure nor did they meet the stakeholder
expectations. Therefore, Turner & Townsend and HOK were commissioned
to produce a more interventionist scheme, mirroring the approach
taken for Middlesex Guildhall, which would present a structured
solution for utilising the space available.
Following ongoing discussions with representatives
from the Inland Revenue, Somerset House Trust and the DCMS, a
visit to the New Wing Somerset House was arranged for the Law
Lords in order for them to view the site and to provide the Project
with their immediate thoughts upon the suitability of the building
as the preferred location, as well as their views about the proposed
plans. Lord Bingham subsequently wrote to the Secretary of State
in order to elaborate upon the views of the Law Lords following
their visit.
On 2 July the Constitutional Reform Bill Select
Committee published its report, detailing its findings and opinions
arising out of the evidence sessions that it had heard during
the preceding months. The Committee made the following comments
on the Supreme Court
"132. There was a clear division
of opinion within the Committee between those members who agreed
that the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords should be replaced
by a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and those members who
did not. Accordingly, we make no recommendation to the House.
133. We are agreed however that, were
a Supreme Court to be established, it should be housed in a building
befitting its importance but it is not for us to make the choice."
In relation to Middlesex Guildhall, no further
work was commissioned by the Project as the details required for
completing a Green Book analysis had been completed in May 2004.
A sequence of meetings were arranged between
the DCA appointed negotiating team (Knight Frank & Michelmores)
and the Inland Revenue, Somerset House Trust and DCMS to take
place between the end of July and August. These meetings were
to identify the likely cost, timeframe and financial impact of
any Inland Revenue decant from the New Wing arising out of any
decision to select it as the preferred location.
On 9 August a meeting was held with representatives
from English Heritage (EH) and Westminster Planning Authority
(WPA) at Somerset House to ascertain their views towards the existing
design of the New Wing and the proposals contained within the
interventionist scheme. Letters were subsequently received from
both English Heritage and Westminster Planning Authority detailing
their views towards the plans for both New Wing Somerset House
and Middlesex Guildhall. At this stage English Heritage proposed
that 10 Whitehall Place might be a suitable option and this was
subsequently investigated through the OGC. The OGC advice was
that this site formed part of existing Crown Estate development
plans.
1.9 Building Selection Process—Evaluation
of Preferred Option
Upon receipt of the letters from the planning
agencies, Feilden & Mawson were commissioned to produce conservation
plans for both New Wing Somerset House and Middlesex Guildhall.
These would be utilised in discussions with the planning agencies
in order to produce building designs that would meet the heritage
requirements of each building. Supplemental to the comments recorded
in the letters, visits were arranged to both of the buildings
for representatives from EH & WPA to "walk through"
their concerns about the proposed plans, alongside members from
the Project team.
Concurrent to the ongoing work relating to the
designs for each building, discussions were continuing between
representatives from the Implementation Project and those representing
the Somerset House Trust, Inland Revenue and DCMS. These separate
discussions took place in order to identify the financial and
contractual information inherent evaluating the New Wing as a
building option, with a view to completing the Green Book Analysis.
Towards the end of August a building progress submission was put
forward to the Secretary of State outlining the present position
with regard to the building decision. Arising from this submission
the Secretary of State requested a meeting with the Project in
order to discuss progress.
The draft Green Book Analysis was received towards
the beginning of September, which formed the basis for evaluating
the two options, together with their associated designs and procurement
options.
On 10 September the Secretary of State expressed
concern that progress upon the selection of the building had seemingly
stalled in discussions with both EH & WPA. [7]
The Secretary of State directed that there be:
— Further work on assessing the
planning issues on Middlesex Guildhall and the New Wing of Somerset
House with English Heritage and Westminster Council;
— Exploration of possible interim
options for housing the Supreme Court in central London; and
— Further searches for potential
new build sites or prestigious stand-alone buildings within central
London.
It was also agreed that a subsequent progress
submission would be produced in two weeks, in order to update
the Secretary of State on the directed actions.
A series of meetings were arranged with representatives
from both English Heritage and Westminster Planning Authority,
in order to discuss the proposed designs for both of the buildings
and their concerns, as well as those areas of negotiation. As
well as the meetings, Feilden & Mawson produced a conservation
plan concerning Somerset House, that would assist all involved
in the Building decisions gain a better understanding of the areas
that required to be retained.
An update submission was forwarded to the Secretary
of State, detailing the progress made on the directed actions.
The views of the planning Authorities gleaned from the meetings
were relayed, and the Secretary of State was informed that a formal
letter would be received towards the beginning of October. An
evaluation of the interim options identified during that two-week
period was also included[8]
which the options that had been investigated. The criteria for
the search was:
— Over 3,000 square metres;
— Containing several good size
rooms (in particular, space for hearing rooms) which would not
need major structural works to create;
— No obvious planning difficulties;
— Was not part of a complex building
rationalisation scheme (which would need to be untangled);
— Could be delivered quickly (by
early 2007 at latest);
— The building was currently unoccupied
or had an easily identifiable decant solution (a standard office
might be acceptable, but an operational court would not); but
— With no requirement for a prestigious
building.
The search and evaluation was undertaken in
conjunction with colleagues from OGC (Office of Government Commerce),
Knight Frank, Land Securities and DCA Officials. In response to
the submission the Secretary of State requested a progress meeting
with the Project Team. Chris Leslie MP, Parliamentary Under secretary,
also suggested that Alex Allan, DCA Permanent Secretary, meet
with representatives from the planning authorities to discuss
their points raised and also meet with Lords Bingham and Nicholls,
in order to discuss the matter further with them.
"I turn to practicalities. The Supreme
Court must have appropriate premises. The Government have agreed
a set of requirements with the Law Lords and our commitment to
meeting them is clear. The executive must be held accountable
for that. The search for suitable premises must not distract us
from the principles behind these reforms. It is no reason to delay
legislation. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell,
that proper information needs to be provided before this Chamber
reaches a conclusion.
I have learnt many things as a result of my
involvement in the Dome, one of which is not to keep talking about
what is going on. It is better to wait until you have your final
position and then say what it is."
(Lord Falconer of Thoroton, Secretary of State
for Constitutional Affairs, 11 October 2004.)
On 13 October the Secretary of State discussed
the Building decision with officials and discussed the way forward
and his requirements for delivering the announcement. At that
meeting it was agreed that:
— There should be a meeting between
the planning authorities and the DCA Permanent Secretary, concerning
Middlesex Guildhall;
— The costs for delivering Somerset
House should be verified and confirmed at the next meeting; and
— The potential new build sites
highlighted to the DCA Commercial Director by Land Securities
be investigated, and outline plans produced.
It was agreed that a follow-up meeting would
be arranged for two weeks time. On 15 October Alex Allan, Permanent
Secretary for the Department for Constitutional Affairs visited
both of the locations under consideration in order to obtain a
better understanding of the issues relating to both buildings.
On 20 October, Alex Allan met with representatives
from Westminster City Council to discuss the proposed plans for
both New Wing Somerset House and Middlesex Guildhall and their
planning objections/concerns regarding the designs for both. The
Planning representatives stated that, in relation to Middlesex
Guildhall, the more radical the intervention the less likely the
plans would receive approval. On 21 October, Alex Allan met with
Lord Bingham and Lord Nicholls, in order to provide them with
an update concerning the building decision and to ascertain their
views concerning the existing designs for both options.
On 3 November, a progress meeting was held with
the Secretary of State, in order to inform him of the progress
and developments over the preceding 14 days. At that meeting details
concerning the possible new build option, including consideration
of outline designs, were discussed and explained.
On 4 November a meeting took place with representatives
from Westminster Planning Authority and English Heritage, following
on from the earlier meeting between Alex Allan and the Chief Executive.
At that meeting considerable progress was achieved with regard
to the areas of compromise concerning the outline designs for
Middlesex Guildhall, however there were still a couple of areas
that required further consideration. Both English Heritage and
Westminster welcomed the sympathetic approach to the hearing room
designs and thought that the total renovation of the furniture
in those two rooms could be acceptable together with the Law Lords'
proposed re-orientation of the layout of hearing room three. This
radical refurbishment would, however, need to be weighed against
the overall package for the building and they would want to see
other benefits, which might include a more conservative approach
to the design of hearing room two, display of historic furniture
(such as the judge's throne) in a publicly accessible part of
the building, and introduction of educational facilities.
In the light of these comments, Feilden &
Mawson were commissioned to provide a comprehensive conservation
package illustrating the approach to the whole building, including
the exterior and justices' chambers as well as the hearing rooms.
Concerning Somerset House the responses received
from both English Heritage and the Westminster planners were reasonably
positive and it was clear that they would be willing to consider
a number of conservation-based schemes. From these discussions
it was clear that there were areas where compromise would be required
from the Law Lords, in particular the hearing room ceiling heights
and car parking. The outstanding issue regarding Somerset House
was the agreement towards the Heads of Term, and in particular
the value of the rent to be paid by the DCA. On 8 November a meeting
was held with representatives from Inland Revenue, DCMS and OGC
in order to discuss the issue, to identify the next steps and
to try and resolve the impasse. It was agreed that negotiations
would continue and that this matter would be discussed between
Alex Allan and Sir Christopher Mallaby, when they met subsequently
on 15 November.
Arising out of discussions with representatives
from OGC, three potential new build options were identified as
possibly meeting our requirements, these were:
— The "triangle" of
land in front of the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre; and
Upon brief evaluation of the locations, each
was found to be unsuitable to the requirements for a UK Supreme
Court. They had been identified as potential contingency options,
if either of Middlesex or the New Wing had proved to be unacceptable
to the key stakeholders. Therefore, a detailed evaluation was
not undertaken, as it would have been encompassed within any OJEU
exercise subsequent to any December decision.
On 16 November, Lord Falconer appeared before
the Constitutional Affairs Committee to discuss the Constitutional
Reform Bill, including the creation of a Supreme Court, in the
light of the Committee's fact-finding visit to Australia and New
Zealand.
"There are two buildings, as you know,
Middlesex Guildhall and Somerset House. Both of them raise different
sorts of issues. Both of them raise planning issues; both of them
raise financial issues, because, as you seek to solve the planning
issues, so greater expenditure may be required in order to achieve
that. We are in the process of working through development plans
for both models to see which one can be delivered. I cannot tell
you what the result would be at the moment and I cannot give you
detailed financial figures at the moment, because we are in the
process of working them through."
(Lord Falconer of Thoroton, Secretary of State
for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor, 16 November 2004.)
Following a subsequent meeting with representatives
from English Heritage and Westminster Planning Authority, a meeting
took place with Lord Bingham and Lord Nicholls, chaired by the
Permanent Secretary Alex Allan, in order to discuss the present
state of affairs regarding the building decision and to discuss
the next steps towards delivering a building announcement. It
was agreed that Lord Nicholls and Lord Bingham should visit Middlesex
Guildhall again and that the remainder Law Lords should re-visit
the building, and receive a presentation from representatives
from Feilden & Mawson as to the outline designs.
The visits to Middlesex Guildhall took place
on 30 November and 2 December, at which the Law Lords acknowledged
the appropriateness of the Middlesex Guildhall as a suitable building
for the Supreme Court. However, they did identify a few decorative
issues that will require resolution with the planning authorities
during the process of fitting out the building. Concurrently to
the visits to Middlesex Guildhall, the final discussions were
taking place with the legal representatives for the Somerset House
Trust, in order to deliver an agreement regarding the heads of
term.
The points flagged up by the Law Lords about
Middlesex Guildhall were raised at the meeting with English Heritage
and Westminster City Council on 6 December. It was clear that
they would not be drawn into a firm view on individual points
in isolation from the overall package, although they did make
clear that this was a project "worth pursuing". English
Heritage asked for a number of detailed studies (for example a
strategy on displaced artworks and on display of items of historic
significance), and their view was that it would be more helpful
to take this work forward if the Government gave a clear indication
that Middlesex Guildhall was its preferred option.
All of this information was collated and presented
to the Secretary of State in a submission on 7 December, which
recommended that Middlesex Guildhall be announced as the preferred
location. A subsequent series of meetings with Lords Bingham and
Nicholls took place, as well as discussions with representatives
from both English Heritage and Westminster Planning Authority
before the Secretary of State confirmed his decision.
22 December 2004
Annex A
EVALUATION CRITERIA
The following table outlines the matrix used
during the evaluation of the buildings under consideration.
| Quality Criteria
| Weight | Quality Criteria
| Weight |
| 1. Suitability 25% |
| 3. Prestige and Location 25% |
|
| (i) Meets Statement of Requirement (give evidence of any degree of compromise and scope for future expansion)
| 3 x | (i) Transport Links/Accessibility
| 1 x |
| (ii) Operational Efficiency (eg chambers grouped together, proximity of staff to judiciary, library to chambers)
| 2 x | (ii) Local Services (eg nearby catering facilities, research facilities, post office etc)
| 1 x |
| (iii) Fit with wider DCA Estate Strategy
| 1 x | (iii) Identity of Building (listed status, character features, history and design, views expressed by stakeholders, Would the character of the building reflect the status and independence of the Supreme Court? etc)
| 3 x |
| (iv) Policy Suitability (refer to Programme level critical success factors)
| 3 x | | |
| 2. Deliverability 25% |
| 4. Cost Criteria 25% |
|
| (i) Timing | 3 x | (i) Affordability
| 3 x |
| (ii) Complexity (decant required, potential problems with lease/sale negotiations, planning restrictions)
| 2 x | (ii) Value for Money
| 3 x |
| (iii) Control Over Building (access and constraints ie listing restrictions)
| 1 x | | |
| Score: | |
| |
1. Criteria have not been met in significant aspects.
2. Criteria have not been met in some minor aspects.
3. Criteria have been met.
4. Criteria have been exceeded in some minor aspects.
5. Criteria have been exceeded in significant aspects.
Significant or likely risks should reduce the score that
is awarded & evidence recorded to support the marking.
Weighting:1. Desirable—criteria that is not met
can be offset through achieving compromise or benefits elsewhere.
2. Significant.
3. Essential.
Annex B
SUPREME COURT
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMME
BUSINESS CASE
V2.1 (EXTRACT)
3.1 The Refurbishment Project Location Options Appraisal
The options appraisal exercise for the Refurbishment project
reviewed a number of appropriate locations for UK Supreme Court,
with the preferred option being the Middlesex Guildhall. The initial
options appraisal exercise took place in November 20057[9]
and considered eight location options. The key outcomes are summarised
below:
| Refurbishment Location Options | Description
| Strength | Weakness
| Opportunity | Threat
|
| Do Nothing | n/a | n/a
| n/a | n/a | n/a
|
| 1 | Middlesex Guildhall
Middlesex Guildhall is a Grade 2* listed building situated on Parliament Square with moderate intervention procured through coterminous lease and leaseback.
| Significantly less expensive than the other options in cash terms (£158 million net cost as opposed to £229 million[10] for Option 2 and £194 million for Option 3).
| | The building is owned by DCA and currently houses courtrooms that would be relocated.
| Risk to the existing HMCS operation that would be displaced.
|
| 2 | Somerset House with DCA funded moderate intervention. Somerset House is a Grade 1 listed building situated on The Strand. The Supreme Court would require the use of one wing of the building, New Wing, currently leased by the Inland Revenue. Option 2 assumed that DCA funds the required refurbishment works and leases New Wing for 35 years.
| Grade 1 listed building with an impressive external appearance and could accommodate the schedule of requirements and the stakeholder requirements.
| Most costly due to the high up-front capital cost. DCA would have had to fund the decant costs of the Inland Revenue.
| | |
| 3 | Buckingham Gate—Buckingham Gate (Wellington House) under a Private Developer Scheme ("PDS"). Option 3 assumed that a private sector developer funded a new build on the Buckingham Gate. This site was at the time leased by the Metropolitan Police and DCA pays for the property via a lease.
| | Buckingham Gate was more expensive than Middlesex Guildhall, the ongoing costs would have been significantly higher, particularly the lease.
| | |
The results of the Refurbishment Location Options ranking
are shown below:
| Refurbishment Location Options Ranking
| Option | Qualitative — Max 75
| Quantitative — Max 25 | Total Score Max 100
|
| Location | |
| | |
| | Do Nothing | n/a
| n/a | |
| 1 | Middlesex Guildhall |
41 | 13 | 54 |
| 2 | Buckingham Gate | 43
| 8 | 51 |
| 3 | Somerset House | 44
| 5 | 49 |
3
The original requirement was for a space of approximately 3000
m2, however subsequent to the initial definition of the required
space stakeholder meetings and views expressed increased the requirement
to its current level. Back
4
In response to the consultation paper, the Lords of Appeal in
Ordinary recommended that the JCPC be co-located with the Supreme
Court in order to maximise the relevant resources (paragraph 6;
27 October 2003). Back
5
The initial 48 properties were evaluated against the statement
of requirements, the buildings location/prestige and delivery
date. Back
6
The Green Book, Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government,
HM Treasury: The Green Book is a best practice guide for all central
departments and executive agencies, and covers projects of all
types and size. It aims to make the appraisal process throughout
government more consistent and transparent. Back
7
Note of meeting 10 September 2004, attached as flag A to 24 September
2004 submission to Secretary of State, providing an update on
the building selection procedure. Back
8
Details of the evaluation are outlined in Flag C to Supreme
Court-Progress on Building Evaluation 24 September 2004. Back
9
Ernst and Young UK Supreme Court Value for Money Evaluation
November 2005. Back
10
Net Cost to Treasury £229 million Somerset House with Moderate
Intervention, £194 million Buckingham Gate PDS. Back
| 
